Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

On Stalinism: DiaMat is not absolute materialism.

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 23:07
Not exactly the best source but the easiest :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

So get your determinism away please.

You might come up with holographic universe as an answer to keep determinism (i believe you dont even know what does that mean). But this too opens up a whole can of worms in traditional positivism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 30 Jul 2014, 23:15
AldoBrasil wrote:
Not exactly the best source but the easiest :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

So get your determinism away please.

You might come up with holographic universe as an answer to keep determinism (i believe you dont even know what does that mean). But this too opens up a whole can of worms in traditional positivism.

String theory would also say Einstein was more right than he could have known, since it would make particles much more predictable than Bohr thought.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 23:18
String theory is not proved. Its just speculation that comes and goes around never being proved and always being modified.

If you take things like "elegant universe" you might very well have the holy grail of religion, a parallel universe that influences this where we are.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV_X2B5OK1I

But i dont care, almost all that is said about quantum physics is speculation. Bell theorem is not.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 30 Jul 2014, 23:24
AldoBrasil wrote:
String theory is not proved. Its just speculation that comes and goes around never being proved and always being modified.

Sure, but it has much more widespread acceptance than the holographic universe hypothesis, and stands a higher chance of becoming an accepted "theory of everything." The biggest problem is that it's just very hard to test for, and there's little foreseeable profit incentive in funding those tests since so far its applications are all theoretical. And it's not so much that it's always being modified as that it's a series of pretty diverging ideas which are all united by a shared view of particles. Basically, string theories, plural. The most widely-accepted version is Hawking's M-theory though, as far as I'm aware. That's the one Michio Kaku is always ranting about anyway.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 30 Jul 2014, 23:29
I am no proponent of the holographic universe. Its a deterministic theory that goes away with locality to save determinism. But it creates a whole lot more complex universe.

But the basic fact stills standing. We have reasons to not know if the universe is entirely deterministic or not. OP-Bagration want's us to believe it is, only because he believes !

The simple fact that scientists are still debating this shows that we dont know ! Who i am going to belive, OP-Bagration and his agenda to save Stalinist era absolute materialism ?
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1277
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 29 Sep 2011, 13:51
Party Member
Post 31 Jul 2014, 01:38
MissStrangelove wrote:
The most widely-accepted version is Hawking's M-theory though, as far as I'm aware.


It was Edward Witten who created M-theory by unifying all the other superstring theories. Stephen Hawking had nothing to do with that. The "M" in M-theory is supposedly an inverted W from Witten's last name, although he himself denies it and would sometimes claim that the M actually stands for matrix.
Image


My laws shall act more pleasure than command,
And with my prick I'll govern all the land.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1078
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 21 Sep 2013, 03:08
Ideology: Trotskyism
Party Member
Post 31 Jul 2014, 02:52
Yeqon wrote:
It was Edward Witten who created M-theory by unifying all the other superstring theories. Stephen Hawking had nothing to do with that. The "M" in M-theory is supposedly an inverted W from Witten's last name, although he himself denies it and would sometimes claim that the M actually stands for matrix.

I just looked it up. You're right, my mistake.
Hawking is a big supporter of it though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introducti ... ory#Status
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 31 Jul 2014, 05:16
Quote:
Others have believed that since Marx and Engels saw themselves as offering a scientific account of society, they were therefore committed to the existence of deterministic laws that would either leave no room for human agency and struggle to play a significant role or determine the outcome of such struggle. This argument rests on the false assumption that science is necessarily deterministic. But that idea is no longer accepted even in the physical sciences, let alone the biological and social sciences.


http://www.isreview.org/issues/58/gaspe ... nism.shtml

Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances, but under circumstances existing already, given and transmitted from the past.” (Karl Marx)

Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 31 Jul 2014, 06:55
I honestly don't see what the big deal is concerning determinism. Man is free to make a seemingly infinite number of choices, no matter what. Does it really matter if the absolute number of choices is less finite than it appears to our limited minds? Bottom line: There are still so many choices that we could hardly exhaust them all in the limited number of years we have available to us. So we can believe in "free will" all we want, regardless of what the truth may (or may not) be.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 31 Jul 2014, 07:14
Free will is meaningless in most circunstances. The problem is not so much of determinism. The problem is when you attach both deterministic and preditive at the same time, ie., not only human beings are deterministic but you can even predict what they are going to do or want.

When absolute materialism reaches that point, you get the kind of tyranny i am talking about. Men becomes a machine in the trullest sense, so you can very well stabilish technicians who are specialized in detect mankind behaviour, needs etc.

Determinism or no determinism we are still to see the position science will end leading us. But preditive hangs up in the balance. We can end up with an universe (and man's mind) that is still deterministic but impossible to predict etc. Science hasn't uncovered the whole thing.

What happens, for one, if we get the holographic universe model ?

Everything is in everything, like a hologram. You might end up with a model of universe where you cannot predict anything fully, because as everything has effect on everything, you would need a computer with storage capacity equal to the ammount of entropy in the universe (IE.: Theres no trully isolated system). Impossible, you use the whole current universe to build such computer (leaving no space for mankind itself, and using more energy than exists in the universe) or you would need to create a whole parallel universe just to store the computer (and that computer would end up being just a plain copy of this universe, 1 to 1, and your computing speed happens to be so that when you reach a prediction in that computer, it already hapened in our universe, at the exact same momment). So you get your dreaded deterministic universe, but you cannot predict 100% what will happen tomorrow. And so on.

But, how we detected that the universe is deterministic to start with ? We made predictions ! So, i say, if i left this rock fall (i am hipotetically holding a rock), it will go down. Well, it always does (the chance of it not doing so are so small that we might say that in th whole history of the universe, a rock never failed to fall down). So we jump and say that rocks will always fall (The prediction becomes a determinism). [That's a stupid example, i know]. So our capacity to produce predictions and see those predictions fullfiled, made us believe that the universe is deterministic. But what happens if we discover that we cant predict everything ? We start to fear that, consequently, not everything is deterministic.

So whats the point ? I prefer to believe there is space for chance.
Soviet cogitations: 12389
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Apr 2010, 04:44
Ideology: None
Philosophized
Post 31 Jul 2014, 18:30
As long as mankind exists without the power to alter the laws of physics, the Universe may as well be determined. If man someday does progress (or evolve) to the point where he is able to decisively change the gravitational constant of his surroundings, he can then congratulate himself on possessing "free will".

Of course, the mere fact that he was able to achieve this huge leap also means that he exists in a Universe which was able to support it. In other words, while he could have chosen to make this leap or forego it, the possible range of choices related to this decision was already contained in the Universe. Paradox.
Miss Strangelove: "You feed giants laxatives so goblins can mine their poop before the gnomes get to it."
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Aug 2014, 10:36
Quote:
String theory is not proved.

Boehr's theory isn't proved too.

Quote:
But, how we detected that the universe is deterministic to start with ? We made predictions !

Marxists rather call that "practice", which is different.

Quote:
Impossible, you use the whole current universe to build such compute

This is exactly what I said above, nobody is trying to challenge this idea. Nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty.

Quote:
So we jump and say that rocks will always fall (The prediction becomes a determinism).

Oh no! This is Hume's empirism, not DiaMat. One again you are using idealist philosophy.

Quote:
So whats the point ? I prefer to believe there is space for chance.

What you call "chance" there, others call that "god". Thats why you are an agnostic.

Quote:
As long as mankind exists without the power to alter the laws of physics, the Universe may as well be determined. If man someday does progress (or evolve) to the point where he is able to decisively change the gravitational constant of his surroundings, he can then congratulate himself on possessing "free will".

+1
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 01 Aug 2014, 16:57
Quote:
Boehr's theory isn't proved too.


So ?

Quote:
Marxists rather call that "practice", which is different.


What practice ? How can practice (IE.: Experience) prove a theory all by itself ?

Well, thats a point that i like to discuss. Galileu proposed a model where the sun is the center of the universe (and so earth moves around it). Detractors devised an experiment. If earth trully moves, then a ball of iron left to fall from the top of a tower cannot fall at the base of the tower, it must reach ground away from the tower (because the tower is attached to a moving earth, but the ball isnt). And so they proceeded to do the experiment. The ball obviously fell at the tower base. So they viewed this as a proof that earth does not move, remaining imobile at the center of the universe. In that era the concept of inertia was not developed yet (something that both explains why earth moves and why balls left to fall from a tower dont reach the ground away from the tower). So, with your concept of science as praxis (i believe you are tossing disconnect phrases in order to obscure the discussion, but i will interpret your objection as if comming from a empiricist) experience could very well detract Galileu breaktrought concept of earth motion.

What went wrong ?

Experience cannot interpret itself. You need a theory to interpret the experience. Lacking the needed theory, the experimenters reached a conclusion that was wrong, even having made an experience to start with (instead of objecting on purely religion grounds), something that was considered (because scientists at the time - if we could call them scientists - where empiricists) standard procedure (and still is, but under a different light). But them can we prescind from experiments ? Of course not. We need both. Experience AND theory, to develop science. As a side note, science is not always a perfect and beautiful endeavour. Science can get ugly, generate wrong results, starts from biases (as it usally do), reach wrong conclusions, experiences can mislead, knowledge can be acquired from obscure souces, from accidents etc. Science is a historical thing.

Being a historical thing, this means that even deeply rooted principles can be challenged sometimes. What hapened to Newton's laws, are they wrong after relativism ? Depends. And thats where i said science needs to make predictions. But how so ? We need to see science, not as the burgeoise concept of the search for the truth following a method that purifies the scientists from its biases (as if the scientists were a kind of saints in a new religion), but as a historical struggle of mankind in order to attain power over material conditions. If you apply newton's laws to a body moving in space at a speed in the order of what we call relativistic speeds, newton's laws fails.

But why they fail ?

Take two sets of two pencils, write on a paper 2+2=4, now group the two sets of pencils into a single group, now count how many pencils there are. Four. So, the science (in that case mathematics) predicted the result of the material operation of grouping the pencils. A theory is good as long as it can predict the results of a certain event at material level. So this means that Newton's laws are wrong ? Nope, this means that Newton's law can be only used in a certain set of conditions. Newton's theory can predict - with a good margin - the outcomes of a certain set of events. Outside that set of events, we need to resort to Einstein relativistic theory (you must apply Lorentz). But even Einstein is limited to a set of events that can be explained by relativistic theory (Newton's law being a subset of relativistic predictions). So you have a historical sequence of theories that work to predict a larger group of events of nature. But why do we need to predict ? Because science is usefull. It can increase the productivity at a factory, for one. It can save lives, etc. But it cant - at least for now - predict everything. We dont even know if it will someday do so.

Quote:
This is exactly what I said above, nobody is trying to challenge this idea. Nothing can be predicted with 100% certainty.


Your concept of full determinism depends on such supercomputer. You cannot proclaim determinism from knowing the whole set of rules wich nature follows as isolated entities. You need to apply them to the current universe. A experiment (and a theory) is a thing - temporarely - detached from reality (While being conducted). When you devise an experiment you usually detach unwanted variables from it. For example, if you are trying to test the behaviour of an antenna, you must use an anechoic chamber that blocks both reflections and outside sources of eletromagnetic waves. So detached from the rest of the universe (as much as possible) experiments and theory become ideal kinds. But to prove that the universe is entirely deterministic (and to prove that the whole universe is already explainable by a certain set of theories), you need to reattach current knowledge to the universe, by predicting the entire outcome of the current state of the universe (all its variables and transformations). You cannot do so in your mind (because it does not fit), and as i showed, you cannot do so in a computer either.

Quote:
Oh no! This is Hume's empirism, not DiaMat. One again you are using idealist philosophy.


Hume is quite usefull. Its the start of humanism in science.

Quote:
What you call "chance" there, others call that "god". Thats why you are an agnostic.


What you call deterministic universe others call the will of allah (or iaweh)....

Quote:
As long as mankind exists without the power to alter the laws of physics, the Universe may as well be determined. If man someday does progress (or evolve) to the point where he is able to decisively change the gravitational constant of his surroundings, he can then congratulate himself on possessing "free will".


We can't know yet if we can change the laws of nature. For one, when you fly an airplane, you are not challenging any law at all (gravity still works and still pulls the airplane down). What you are doing is USE one law (lift) of nature against another, and in doing so you reach your desired result (flying). In other words you navigate the laws of nature, using them at your advantage, instead of your disadvantage. (Knowledge has such power). But you are alrways inside the laws of nature. Its like a lever were a law is used as fulcrum to achieve a result. But all laws involved still work. Because all our instruments are mechanisms, they are deeply rooted in a mechanical thoght process. If you are going to change the laws of nature themselves, what's the mechanism of doing so ? You migh very well do anything. But lack of limits is itself a limit, because even thougt itself has its own mechanism.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2293
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Aug 2010, 14:21
Party Bureaucrat
Post 01 Aug 2014, 19:29
Quote:
What practice ? How can practice (IE.: Experience) prove a theory all by itself ?

Practice isn't experience, there is a slight difference. Practice supposes a process of transformation and interaction.

Quote:
If earth trully moves, then a ball of iron left to fall from the top of a tower cannot fall at the base of the tower, it must reach ground away from the tower (because the tower is attached to a moving earth, but the ball isnt). And so they proceeded to do the experiment. The ball obviously fell at the tower base

They should have done the same experiment in a mobile cart, they would have believe that the chart wasn't moving either.

Quote:
Experience cannot interpret itself. You need a theory to interpret the experience.

The aim of theory is to understand things. In empiricism however, it's not the theory itself that gives knowledge, but the repetition of experiences themselves. Thus the impossibility, according to empiricism, to reach absolute and even objective knowledge. However, as soo as you try to explain things according to a theory, you oppose empiricism and try to understand objective reality.

Quote:
Because science is usefull. It can increase the productivity at a factory, for one. It can save lives, etc. But it cant - at least for now - predict everything. We dont even know if it will someday do so.

Of course. But the main question is this one: If we had the possibility to apprehend the whole objective reality (a possibility that we will never have, but let's take it as an axiom), could we understand and predict the whole objective reality? A materialist would answer yes. An idealist would answer no, and an agnosticist would say that we don't know. That's the main question.

Quote:
What you call deterministic universe others call the will of allah (or iaweh)....

No, the will of Allah isn't compatible with determinism. Will isn't compatible with determinism. If you want to have a religious position compatible with determinism, you must adopt Spinoza's Deus sive natura.

Quote:
We can't know yet if we can change the laws of nature.

Because you can't.
Image

"Fishing is part of agriculture" Gred
"Loz, you are like me" Yami
"I am one of the better read Marxists on this site" Gred
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 237
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jul 2014, 21:53
Ideology: Other Leftist
Pioneer
Post 01 Aug 2014, 20:09
Quote:
Practice isn't experience, there is a slight difference. Practice supposes a process of transformation and interaction.


Do you mean the dialetical becoming ? Well, if so, praxis means that you cannot know what society is becoming (only give imediate directions), so you can't predict the future (and consequently you can not have a stabilished map on how to reach socialism). So this means that you can't jump to conclusions regarding science. Wich is exactly my position. Science becomes what it is thru history. If you trully believe in becoming (Dont know how to express this in english) you simply cannot know the quality changes that the accumulation of scientifical knowledge might produce.

Quote:
They should have done the same experiment in a mobile cart, they would have believe that the chart wasn't moving either.


So ? The point is ?

Quote:
The aim of theory is to understand things. In empiricism however, it's not the theory itself that gives knowledge, but the repetition of experiences themselves. Thus the impossibility, according to empiricism, to reach absolute and even objective knowledge. However, as soo as you try to explain things according to a theory, you oppose empiricism and try to understand objective reality.


Nope. Like i said earlier (and you found no way to refute) theory alone does not (Aristoteles already done that), neither experiments alone (like i showed in the case of Galileu's detractors) we need both. Worse, we cannot fully automatize research (because of the problem about artificial intelligence), so we need humans, who have biases.

Quote:
Of course. But the main question is this one: If we had the possibility to apprehend the whole objective reality (a possibility that we will never have, but let's take it as an axiom), could we understand and predict the whole objective reality? A materialist would answer yes. An idealist would answer no, and an agnosticist would say that we don't know. That's the main question.


Nope, its not agnosticism. You might have a fully material reality and yet non-deterministic. You dont need a god for that. In order to fight the perceived threat of a god you resort to recreate a religion in the form of a belief system. You jump from current knowledge about nature to say that the ultimate outcome of the universe is one of total determinism. This is belief, yet you try to present it as if it "already proved". This becomes a religion when imposed upon the minds of a social group. And, as religion, has a political consequence. You can convince people to surrender power to a class of special people who can, by knowing science, provide a better life for everyone (or on the promise of such). The result of this is the bureucractic turn of URSS or our current liberal ideology who incentivate people to surrender their criticism of capitalism to the special knowledge of the market analysts.

Quote:
No, the will of Allah isn't compatible with determinism. Will isn't compatible with determinism. If you want to have a religious position compatible with determinism, you must adopt Spinoza's Deus sive natura.


God is god, catholicism is the religion, padre is the priest and feudalism is the system. Anyone who disagrees is with the evil one.
God is nature, science is the religion, the scientists are the priests and capitalism is the system. Anyone who disagrees is crazy.
Comunism is the objective, Marxism is the religion, the party are the priests and state-capitalism is the system. Anyone who disagrees is an enemy of the proletariat.
<variable 1> is the objective, <variable 2> is the religion, <variable 3> are the priests, <variable 4> is the system. Anyone who disagrees <variable 5> and goes to punishment <variable 6>. Replace variables as you wish.

Quote:
Because you can't.


So what ? I dont know and i dont care if i can change laws of nature.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.